Schwartz and Brown

[lynn cates]

MJK too

Hello Fish. Well, your handling of the Stride business seems the most logical solution that I've seen.

Perhaps later (and in a different thread) you can do the same for Mary Kelly.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"your handling of the Stride business seems the most logical solution that I've seen."

Thank you kindly, Lynn!

"Perhaps later (and in a different thread) you can do the same for Mary Kelly."

Well, being a Swede myself, I have always had a particular feeling for Stride. But I have had a go at Kelly too, in Ripperologist. The trouble with Kelly is that although the killer spent more time with her than with any other victim, I fail to see as many useful clues as is the case with Stride.

I think I need to spend more time in Millerīs Court. To my mind, the Kelly slaying may well carry different implications than the other killings. But that is for another time, and - not least - another thread!

The best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Hello Fish. I agree. I hardly touch that one as the implications transcend my puny mind.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

I wonder what changes you might want to make my amigo Fisherman if we discovered at some point that the reason that Schwartz wasnt used at the Inquest....which is what it appears is the case,....was because he was found to be a Club member and had attended the meeting that night, and the episode he described as happening in the street outside the gates was actually inside the yard and out of sight to anyone who had a view of in front of the gates?

What weight would be attached to a story from a member who stands to lose his club if the killer was thought to be a club member based on the fact that the altercation that began the murder occurred in the yard itself...when his initial story did not include those important facts?

Just a what if. Might the investigators hesitate about endorsing the story at an Inquest, but still privately discuss the ramifications of the "Lipski" remark in later memos? They thought Jack was a Jew....we know that....and the man that yells "Lipski" is probably not....or he is Orthodox.

Cheers mate

[lynn cates]

minor changes

Hello Mike. I assume there may be minor changes, but I like the physical sequence Fish proposes.

I have no qualms about making a club member the suspect, provided he is taking Liz down from behind (and not messing up the cachous) while they are EXITING the yard.

I think that the only real problem revolves around Liz meeting a club member at the door, and then infuriating him within the next 7-9 feet to the point of slitting her throat.

It would help if the club member were named Kaminski or even Kosminski (or even K-something-ski).

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike, Lynn!

Your suggestion, Mike, is something you have aired before on these boards. I must say that I do not buy into it. To me, Schwartz testimony has a ring of truth to it. He awards himself the role of the coward (albeit he brushes up on it in the Star interwiew), and such things more often come about when people are being honest.
There is also a newspaper report (though I cannot say when and in which paper, but Iīm sure there are those who may oblige ...?) that speaks of two people running through the streets, exactly the way Schwarts described the chase along with Pipeman.

Taken together, I find little reason not to believe in Schwartz. Moreover, I firmly believe that he is corroborated by Marshall, since much speaks for Marshalls man and BS man being one and the same - if they were not, then Stride met TWO sturdy men of the same length and approximate age, clad in dark trouser and jackets, wearing peaked caps and being of respectable appearance on that evening.

No, I stick with my scenario for the simple reason that it offers a credible explanation to each and every detail involved in the Stride killing.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

As far as Im concerned old friend, I may not agree with the exact story that youve woven the premise together with as you do....but I sure find it easy to accept a simpler premise than a botched abdominal mutilation.

Simple evidence in terms of the physical wounds dictates that a simple answer may also be applicable I think.

All the best mate.

[lynn cates]

ditto

Hello Mike! I'll say! (Perhaps the Easter Bunny is preferable to the mutilatus interruptus theory. Oops, too cavalier?)

Cheers.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello Mike! I'll say! (Perhaps the Easter Bunny is preferable to the mutilatus interruptus theory. Oops, too cavalier?)

Cheers.
LC

....shhh.....maybe no-one will see that.

Cheers Lynn

[lynn cates]

mum

Hello Mike. 'ere now, 'ere now, ah never said nothin' Guv.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Simple evidence in terms of the physical wounds dictates that a simple answer may also be applicable I think."

That, my friend, is in all probability a very useful approach. It constitutes much of a bottom line in both our perceptions of the Stride deed, and itīs good to be in agreement about it.
As for the rest of it all, we do differ. And all I will say about that is that I think that I have chosen the simpler answer in this instance too ...

... but that is not to rule out you scenario - of course the clubsmen must be awarded interest, given that the murder took place in their yard. But I think I will leave that particular part of the investigation in your hands!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Why not come forward

We have,seemingly,five men in or near Berner st at 1245 AM.Of those five two come forward as witnesses.There is speculation but no evidence,that the man seen by Brown and the man referred to as pipeman could have been the same person.However there are definately two persons who witnessed the proceedings outside the yard who could have come forward and given evidence.One was certainly innocent.A reasonabe explanation can be given for BS.There appeared strong circumstantial evidence against him,and even if innocent,the only witness that could clear him was dead.One cannot blame him for remaining quiet.
Pipeman however appears to have nothing to fear.That is nothing that we know of,but if he had indeed been the man seen by Brown,or could be proven to have had some aquaintance with Stride,then his presence at the scene might be viewed differently.I view his reluctance to come forward as more suspicious than that of BS.

[Fisherman]

The suggestion that Pipeman and James Browns man were one and the same rests on the ground that we are ready to believe that what one witness (Brown) said about the length of his man (5 ft 7) can be reconciled with Schwartz estimation of 5 ft 11.
I am having all sorts of trouble with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Just cast your doubts aside.Schwartz was apparantly more concerned with his own safety than standing and taking in a detailed description,and besides a man in a long coat,on a dark night,in a dark street,might,might tend to appear much taller than was actually the case.

[Fisherman]

Well, Harry, regardless of whether Schwartz was scared or not, he had the advantage of being able to compare two men in height! And since he had been walking directly behind BS man BEFORE he was scared by what went down, he would have had every chance to get that height correct. After that, he tok a look at Pipeman and saw that this man was considerably taller that the other guy.

I think this is quite enough to realize that Browns man and Pipeman were probably not one and the same.

The best,
Fisherman